In a little more detail, the modern theory of cosmic origins goes like this. Some 15 billion or so years ago, the universe erupted from an enormously energetic, singular event, which spewed forth all of space and all of matter. (You don't have to search far to locate where the big bang occurred, for it took place where you are now as well as everywhere else; in the beginning, all locations we now see as separate were the same location.) The temperature of the universe a mere 10-43 seconds after the bang, the so-called Planck time, is calculated to have been about 1032 Kelvin, some 10 trillion trillion times hotter than the deep interior of the sun. As time passed, the universe expanded and cooled, and as it did, the initial homogeneous, roiling hot, primordial cosmic plasma began to form eddies and clumps. At about a hundred-thousandth of a second after the bang, things had cooled sufficiently (to about 10 trillion Kelvin—about a million times hotter than the sun's interior) for quarks to clump together in groups of three, forming protons and neutrons. About a hundredth of a second later, conditions were right for the nuclei of some of the lightest elements in the periodic table to start congealing out of the cooling plasma of particles. For the next three minutes, as the simmering universe cooled to about a billion degrees, the predominant nuclei that emerged were those of hydrogen and helium, along with trace amounts of deuterium ("heavy" hydrogen) and lithium. This is known as the period of primordial nucleosynthesis.

Not a whole lot happened for the next few hundred thousand years, other than further expansion and cooling. But then, when the temperature had dropped to a few thousand degrees, wildly streaming electrons slowed down to the point where atomic nuclei, mostly hydrogen and helium, could capture them, forming the first electrically neutral atoms. This was a pivotal moment: from this point forward the universe, by and large, became transparent. Prior to the era of electron capture, the universe was filled with a dense plasma of electrically charged particles—some with positive charges like nuclei and others with negative charges, like electrons. Photons, which interact only with electrically charged objects, were bumped and jostled incessantly by the thick bath of charged particles, traversing hardly any distance before being deflected or absorbed. The charged-particle barrier to the free motion of photons would have made the universe appear almost completely opaque, much like what you may have experienced in a dense morning fog or a blinding, gusty snowstorm. But when negatively charged electrons were brought into orbit around positively charged nuclei, yielding electrically neutral atoms, the charged obstructions disappeared and the dense fog lifted. From that time onward, photons from the big bang have traveled unhindered and the full expanse of the universe gradually came into view.

About a billion years later, with the universe having substantially calmed down from its frenetic beginnings, galaxies, stars, and ultimately planets began to emerge as gravitationally bound clumps of the primordial elements. Today, some 15 billion or so years after the bang, we can marvel at both the magnificence of the cosmos and at our collective ability to have pieced together a reasonable and experimentally testable theory of cosmic origin

1. (of a volcano) Become active and eject lava, ash,and gases2. Be ejected from an active volcano

And I'm still uncomfortable with the word, but it would do, just for the layman though.

I'm guessing you're going to run off into lalalala land with even just that, so let's look at another excerpt from the same man:

brian greene:"A common misconception isthat the Big Bang provides a theory ofcosmic origins. It doesn't. The Big Bangis a theory ... that delineates cosmicevolution from a split second afterwhatever happened to bring theuniverse into existence, but it saysnothing at all about time zero itself.And since, according to the Big Bangtheory, the bang is what is supposed tohave happened at the beginning, theBig Bang leaves out the bang. It tellsus nothing about what banged, why itbanged, how it banged, or, frankly,whether it really banged at all.

Expansion, all the big ba.ng is about. No explosion, no need whatsoever to assume one. And note here 'b.ang' is not even supposed mean an explosion, it's just the word he uses to substitute for whatever process caused the expansion. For whatever released the restraints on all that energy that had been packed together, very unlikely an explosion. So, in essence, he's saying the energy might have come from nothing and there never were any restraints, even if unlikely.

wiegraf: So, in essence, he's saying the energy might have come from nothing and there never were any restraints, even if unlikely. .

First things first. Brian Greene is nobody to know better. As expected, his claim is different from the theory I know. To call the slam a process is an intellectual nonsense. Their is no correlation, whether literally or metaphorically. Hubble knew exactly what he meant when he proposed the theory. How does bang translate to process? Haba!Another blunder. If he's saying the energy come from nothing as you proposed, I'm sorry to say, he is a dimwit.Seems you've forgotten so fast that, 'energy can neither be created nor destroyed'.

Reyginus: First things first. Brian Greene is nobody to know better. As expected, his claim is different from the theory I know. To call the slam a process is an intellectual nonsense. Their is no correlation, whether literally or metaphorically. Hubble knew exactly what he meant when he proposed the theory. How does bang translate to process? Haba!Another blunder. If he's saying the energy come from nothing as you proposed, I'm sorry to say, he is a dimwit.Seems you've forgotten so fast that, 'energy can neither be created nor destroyed'.

You've forgotten something from nothing so quickly? Trust me, brian greene knows a lot more than those you sourced. At the very least, his reputation is much more solid.

But we get to the most salient bit of this post: you don't know what the big b.ang is. Add that to the fact you don't understand how science works, and I can the problems

Lol. This question is clueless. The thing is, evolution and relativity are not wrongly used as you claimed with the big bang. The words point to changes and relativism. Apply it to the big ban.g. Has their ever being any theory, whose meaning cannot be drawn from how it is termed?

Reyginus: Lol. This question is clueless. The thing is, evolution and relativity are not wrongly used as you claimed with the big bang. The words point to changes and relativism. Apply it to the big ban.g. Has their ever being any theory, whose meaning cannot be drawn from how it is termed?

Erm, so, evolution and gr cannot be called processes? You do realize that was what that response was for, yes?

Regardless, let's examine our latest strawmen. Are you sure science didn't introduce the words into english lexicon? The word 'evolution' comes from a latin word which means unrolling. Hmm. In most cases one wouldn't say evolution is about unrolling, yes?

Quanta comes from a word that means 'how much'. Interesting, it seems to say nothing about small sizes.

Regardless of origin of words, I'm not sure how one would know gr is related to gravity without being explicitly told so, or do you?

And big ban.g doesn't say anything about the processes involved of course, as most people do not associate violent expansions with explosions. Just as you seemingly were not able to deduce the expansion from the term, even if you erroneously attributed it to an explosion (btw, I hope you can spot sarcasm)

You are wasting time with this particularly silly nonsense. You've been shown evidence EVERWHERE that it does not say anything about explosions.

Science does NOT make unfounded claims then pass them up as fact. Therefore it would not add explosions to the BB THEORY (note the word theory, indicating a framework, you know, like other scientific theories) when there is no reason whatsoever to add one. Shikena.

Thank you though for demonstrating the difference between the scientific method and the religious approach. Science doesn't draw conclusions then attempt to make nature conform to them, it does the opposite. No evidence (even logical), then no explosion. You want to add explosions, suit yourself. I suppose you should add god as well if it makes you happier. But non of these requirements are scientific in any shape or form, they are unfounded claims made by your subjective bias. They have absolutely nothing to do with the evidence, logical or empirical.

Erm, so, evolution and gr cannot be called processes? You do realize that was what that response was for, yes?

Regardless, let's examine our latest strawmen. Are you sure science didn't introduce the words into english lexicon? The word 'evolution' comes from a latin word which means unrolling. Hmm. In most cases one wouldn't say evolution is about unrolling, yes?

Quanta comes from a word that means 'how much'. Interesting, it seems to say nothing about small sizes.

Regardless of origin of words, I'm not sure how one would know gr is related to gravity without being explicitly told so, or do you?

And big ban.g doesn't say anything about the processes involved of course, as most people do not associate violent expansions with explosions. Just as you seemingly were not able to deduce the expansion from the term, even if you erroneously attributed it to an explosion (btw, I hope you can spot sarcasm)

You are wasting time with this particularly silly nonsense. You've been shown evidence EVERWHERE that it does not say anything about explosions.

Science does NOT make unfounded claims then pass them up as fact. Therefore it would not add explosions to the BB THEORY (note the word theory, indicating a framework, you know, like other scientific theories) when there is no reason whatsoever to add one. Shikena.

Thank you though for demonstrating the difference between the scientific method and the religious approach. Science doesn't draw conclusions then attempt to make nature conform to them, it does the opposite. No evidence (even logical), then no explosion. You want to add explosions, suit yourself. I suppose you should add god as well if it makes you happier. But non of these requirements are scientific in any shape or form, they are unfounded claims made by your subjective bias. They have absolutely nothing to do with the evidence, logical or empirical.

You are not getting it. Before anything can be termed a process, their must be a concord with its etymology and what it seeks to explain. That synergy is evidently lacking, if we are to follow your explanation. You don't have to look at it like that. To be accurate, the syllables in the word are seperated from each other. Then individually, before later co-joining to get the meaning. In 'evolution', we have a poly-syllabic word, 4 syllables precisely. But if you are observant, you would see 'evolve' as the root meaning. 'tion', 'the state of'. Now to the latin side. 'Unrolling' in the connotative sense, is to have different phases of a particular thing. Because a thing rolling is not stagnant, it moves. The circular motion it creates while moving indicates it is happening within an entity. Their is a connection.Quanta, is not about how much? Really? SMH. Can we say the same of the 'big b.ang'?

Reyginus: You are not getting it. Before anything can be termed a process, their must be a concord with its etymology and what it seeks to explain. That synergy is evidently lacking, if we are to follow your explanation. You don't have to look at it like that. To be accurate, the syllables in the word are seperated from each other. Then individually, before later co-joining to get the meaning. In 'evolution', we have a poly-syllabic word, 4 syllables precisely. But if you are observant, you would see 'evolve' as the root meaning. 'tion', 'the state of'. Now to the latin side. 'Unrolling' in the connotative sense, is to have different phases of a particular thing. Because a thing rolling is not stagnant, it moves. The circular motion it creates while moving indicates it is happening within an entity. Their is a connection.Quanta, is not about how much? Really? SMH. Can we say that of the 'big b.ang'?

Like how you deduced from the term that an expansion is involved?

Or how you are cognizant of the fact that your interpretion of those words is subjective, like the bolded indicates.

And this has naught to do with this actually, as term is a *drum rolls please*............ Misnomer!

Suddenly you trust scientists to not make mistakes. Incredible. I thought your initial argument is they make unfounded claims and therefore cannot be trusted. Most unfounded claims look like mistakes or accidents to me. You've changed your mind so soon? To suit your needs maybe? But this is no mistake actually, I've told you how the term originated.

Simple google of the question, "was the big b.ang an explosion?", no need to even add expansion to the search, then please tell me what 90+% of the credible results say. Especially the ones not dumbed down. For instance, look at the peer reviewed scholarly articles (all of those clearly state expansion)...

Or how you are cognizant of the fact that your interpretion of those words is subjective, like the bolded indicates.

And this has naught to do with this actually, as term is a *drum rolls please*............ Misnomer!

Suddenly you trust scientists to not make mistakes. Incredible. I thought your initial argument is they make unfounded claims and therefore cannot be trusted. Most unfounded claims look like mistakes or accidents to me. You've changed your mind so soon? To suit your needs maybe? But this is no mistake actually, I've told you how the term originated.

Simple google of the question, "was the big b.ang an explosion?", no need to even add expansion to the search, then please tell me what 90+% of the credible results say. Especially the ones not dumbed down. For instance, look at the peer reviewed scholarly articles (all of those clearly state expansion)...

Na wa.

The expansion is the effect. That's how. Lol. There are two ways any word can be interpreted. It is either denotative or connotative. Anything short of this, like you're doing with the 'big bang', is not acceptable. I didn't say scientists don't make mistakes, but that the words 'big bang' couldn't have been mistaken. Just like calling a thing rock, but describing water.Are we not done with google?

Reyginus: The expansion is the effect. That's how. Lol. There are two ways any word can be interpreted. It is either denotative or connotative. Anything short of this, like you're doing with the 'big bang', is not acceptable. I didn't say scientists don't make mistakes, but that the words 'big bang' couldn't have been mistaken. Just like calling a thing rock, but describing water.Are we not done with google?

Reyginus: The expansion is the effect. That's how. Lol. There are two ways any word can be interpreted. It is either denotative or connotative. Anything short of this, like you're doing with the 'big bang', is not acceptable. I didn't say scientists don't make mistakes, but that the words 'big bang' couldn't have been mistaken. Just like calling a thing rock, but describing water.Are we not done with google?

Are you serious??!

You believe the big Ban.g must have an explosion, because of b.ang inspite of what the proponets say?!

Wiegraf went thru great lengths to explain that big ban.g was coined by a critic originall to ridicule the theory.

You believe the big Ban.g must have an explosion, because of b.ang inspite of what the proponets say?!

Wiegraf went thru great lengths to explain that big ban.g was coined by a critic originall to ridicule the theory.

Reg u don't have any more points.

What proponents are better than the theory propounder? We will have first accept that hubble was wrong inorder to accomodate the view of any proponent.Points? Haha. What is the point of making any further point if the already posing ones have not been fully understood.

Reyginus: What proponents are better than the theory propounder? We will have first accept that hubble was wrong inorder to accomodate the view of any proponent.Points? Haha. What is the point of making any further point if the already posing ones have not been fully understood.

You've been calling hubble the originator for a while despite naming lemaitre and freidman earlier....*smh*

wiki:Hubble's law is the name for the astronomical observation in physical cosmology that: (1) all objects observed in deep space (intergalactic space) are found to have a Doppler shift observable relative velocity to Earth, and to each other; and (2) that this Doppler-shift-measured velocity, of various galaxies receding from the Earth, is proportional to their distance from the Earth and all other interstellar bodies. In effect, the space-time volume of the observable universe is expanding and Hubble's law is the direct physical observation of this process.[1] It is considered the first observational basis for the expanding space paradigm and today serves as one of the pieces of evidence most often cited in support of the Big Bang model.

Although widely attributed to Edwin Hubble, the law was first derived from the General Relativity equations by Georges Lemaître in a 1927 article where he proposed that the Universe is expanding and suggested an estimated value of the rate of expansion, now called the Hubble constant.[2][3][4][5][6] Two years later Edwin Hubble confirmed the existence of that law and determined a more accurate value for the constant that now bears his name.[7] The recession velocity of the objects was inferred from their redshifts, many measured earlier by Vesto Slipher (1917) and related to velocity by him.[8]

Expanding in regards to earth and EACH OTHER. Uniform expansion != explosion, which would have a centre....

This is pathetic bros. If you're for a name the scientific community has been trying to sell, to no avail as BB is quite catchy, try the cosmic expansion model. Here, scholarly articles on the subject

Reyginus: I think we are done with google. The same google you got all your links from, I got mine. I think it's time we think since google is confused. Can we?

This "think" you like to think you are capable of doing, I've done quite a few times already. I've explained in my own words over and over and over again, but you seem to have missed that.

No we can't. I can't understand why you're suggesting ignorance, it borders on being silly. If all my arguments were built around google searches then you'd have grounds to complain, but that is clearly not so.

You no dey tire sef. This is over more or else, and has been for some time

This "think" you like to think you are capable of doing, I've done quite a few times already. I've explained in my own words over and over and over again, but you seem to have missed that.

No we can't. I can't understand why you're suggesting ignorance, it borders on being silly. If all my arguments were built around google searches then you'd have grounds to complain, but that is clearly not so.

You no dey tire sef. This is over more or else, and has been for some time